T&M Returns
Rookie
This kind of thing was very normal before Fed/Nad/Djo
Point system - OVERHAUL
- Thread starter MrFlip
- Start date
It was also normal during the Fed/Nad/Djo era for players ranked outside the top 4.
MrFlip
Hall of Fame
Show me
10sbeast888
Legend
to be direct. this thread shows rec's lack of understanding of how pro competitions work. The margins are razor thin, anyone can beat anyone on a given day.
MrFlip
Hall of Fame
Dont worry I understand that part. The part which doesn't make sense if how top ranked players can almost decide to lose to whomever and their ranking stays the same
That Kostyuk won't win the '26AO easily.
10sbeast888
Legend
What you are talking about is an ELO system like the UTR... on paper it has advantages... in reality you are talking about a lot of logistics issues like tournament sponsors need to plan things way ahead and e.g. turns out they were selling tickets for a show of world #1 then 6 months later when he shows up the ELO has dropped out of top 20, massive fan dissatisfaction.
MrFlip
Hall of Fame
I disagree.
I would rather watch an actual decent player, rather than see Tiafoe, Tsisipas struggle against guys ranked 150 and we're supposed to be happy we paid money to see it.
Tennis organisers years ago realised there's only so much talent that wont last forever and they need a system which protects the likes of Tiafoe's and Ruuds.
ChrisJR3264
Legend
What’s the point of this thread again?
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
It's doing the Lord's Work by pointing out how much OBSCENITY there is on the pro tennis tour.
10sbeast888
Legend
disagree all you want it's impossible to shake the commercial interest.... generally speaking capital always finds a way, if there is a market for Elo-rated tournaments there would have been already... or you can change the tennis world by pitching this idea to venture capital, or Saudi money - they did change the golf landscape.
you might get laughed out the door but that's still taking action, better than b1tching to a bunch of recs on a random forum
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
In the top half of the men's singles at the AO, 13 of 16 seeds have made the 3rd round. Only Cobolli, Rinderknech, and Auger-Aliassime failed (and Auger-Aliassime was injured).
DEMURE!
DEMURE!
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Assuming Ruud finishes off this match against Munar, there will be 23 seeds in the last 32.
13 in the top half - all bar Cobolli, Rinderknech, and Auger-Aliassime.
10 in the bottom half - those out are Tsitsipas, Lehecka, Griekspoor, Nakashima, Shapovalov, and Fonseca.
If we divide the seeds into high seeds (#s1-16) and low seeds (#s17-32), then of the nine seeds out, only one is a high seed. 15 of the top 16 are through to the last 32 (again, assuming Ruud beats Munar). The only top 16 seed out of the tournament withdrew from his match because of injury.
Moreover, of the nine non-seeds still in the tournament, one of them would be seeded based on this week's rankings (Machac) and two of them are old former slam champions rolling back the years (Cilic and Wawrinka).
The Australian Open is a nice, wholesome tournament that has thus far avoided too much obscenity.
13 in the top half - all bar Cobolli, Rinderknech, and Auger-Aliassime.
10 in the bottom half - those out are Tsitsipas, Lehecka, Griekspoor, Nakashima, Shapovalov, and Fonseca.
If we divide the seeds into high seeds (#s1-16) and low seeds (#s17-32), then of the nine seeds out, only one is a high seed. 15 of the top 16 are through to the last 32 (again, assuming Ruud beats Munar). The only top 16 seed out of the tournament withdrew from his match because of injury.
Moreover, of the nine non-seeds still in the tournament, one of them would be seeded based on this week's rankings (Machac) and two of them are old former slam champions rolling back the years (Cilic and Wawrinka).
The Australian Open is a nice, wholesome tournament that has thus far avoided too much obscenity.
ProStaffFanatic
Professional
you might get laughed out the door but that's still taking action, better than b1tching to a bunch of recs on a random forum
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
R16 in the AO:
12 of 16 players left are seeded within the top 16 and thus in their expected slot. The four who didn't make it were Auger-Aliassime, Davidovich Fokina, Rublev, and Khachanov. The first two of those four withdrew due to injuries during their losses.
Of the four players who are still in but are not among the top 16 seeds, they are all seeded. They are #s 18, 19, 22, and 25. (Cerundolo, Paul, Darderi, and Tien).
Nobody seeded lower than #25 has made R4 of the AO.
What an extremely upstanding, pure, and uncorrupted tournament this men's event has been!
12 of 16 players left are seeded within the top 16 and thus in their expected slot. The four who didn't make it were Auger-Aliassime, Davidovich Fokina, Rublev, and Khachanov. The first two of those four withdrew due to injuries during their losses.
Of the four players who are still in but are not among the top 16 seeds, they are all seeded. They are #s 18, 19, 22, and 25. (Cerundolo, Paul, Darderi, and Tien).
Nobody seeded lower than #25 has made R4 of the AO.
What an extremely upstanding, pure, and uncorrupted tournament this men's event has been!
Connor35
Professional
First time in major history all final 16 have been seeded.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
In the three #1 v #2 finals last week, #1 won the first two of them (De Minaur beat FAA in Rotterdam, Cerundolo beat Darderi in Buenos Aires), but Fritz couldn't close out the Dallas final against Shelton, so there was one obscene result.
This week, so far in Doha no seeds have lost in R1 and through the first two matches of R2, though Bublik did withdraw after the draw was made, so we have a lucky loser (Halys) in his slot, though Halys just lost against Fils. So, Doha is a nice wholesome tournament like many of the 2026 events so far (e.g. the AO, Rotterdam, Buenos Aires).
Rio is obscene, for sure, as only 3 of 8 seeds even made it through their first match!
Delray Beach a bit too early to tell. Because it's a 250, the top 4 seeds got byes in R1 and thus haven't started yet. Of seeds 5-8, three of them won in R1, but #6 (Vacherot) lost to Michelsen. Thus, Vacherot goes from EXPOSING the joke system by winning Shanghai unseeded to being EXPOSED by it by losing to joke players in every subsequent tournament despite being seeded in them.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Brady is a former AO finalist, USO semi-finalist, and world #13 (deplorable that she made such late rounds in back-to-back major tournaments yet never made it higher than #13, of course), and is coming off a long injury. The rankings definitely don't cover situations like that well, but I'm not sure how they could do it better.
MrFlip
Hall of Fame
I know her tennis history and not surprised but never stop shaking my head over how inconsistent the tour is these days.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Bub had a meltdown after losing the second set tiebreak.
MrFlip
Hall of Fame
Must be his first time!
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Overall last 16 of Indian Wells:
Men: 8/16 are within the top 16 seeds, 5/16 are seeded in the 17-32 range, 3/16 are unseeded [one of the three is a qualifier].
Women: 12/16 are within the top 16 seeds, 1/16 is seeded in the 17-32 range, 3/16 are unseeded [one of the three is a qualifier].
Men: 8/16 are within the top 16 seeds, 5/16 are seeded in the 17-32 range, 3/16 are unseeded [one of the three is a qualifier].
Women: 12/16 are within the top 16 seeds, 1/16 is seeded in the 17-32 range, 3/16 are unseeded [one of the three is a qualifier].
manley0702
Semi-Pro
If you think this is a new problem, you haven't been watching the sport very long. It used to be way worse than this.
For the last 20 years, the top guys pretty much win everything. Since 2005, only Federer at the Australian Open in 2017 won a major ranked outside the Top 10, and that was due to injury the previous year and missing a large portion of the season. Outside of that, Wawrinka (#8 at the 2014 Australian) was the lowest ranked guy to win.
Back before your time, you used to see some crazy results. Before Federer emerged, upsets weren't even surprising. Here are a few examples from the early 2000's.
1. Gaston Gaudio won the French Open in 2004, unseeded and ranked #44 in the world. Prior to that win, he'd never been ranked higher than #19 in the world. It was his only title of the season. He wasn't a young guy either; he was 25 at the time.
2. Two years prior to that in 2002, Albert Costa won the French Open. Costa was 35-22 on the year with one title, the French Open. In fact, despite playing several events, he only even made the SFs two other times that year. He was ranked #22 in the world at that time and was nearly 27 at the time.
3. That same year (2002), Thomas Johannson won the Australian Open. He was the #18 seed. Upsets were so common then that he didn't play a single Top 10 seed on his way to the title. In fact, he only had to beat one Top 20 player. As with the others, that was his only title that year. He went 29-24, and a SF at Dubai that same year was the only other time he made it past the QFs. Also like Costa, he was 2 months from turning 27 when he won it.
4. The most famous example is Goran Ivanisevic at 2001 Wimbledon. Like the others, it was his only title that year. He was 29-22 on the year. He made the SFs two other times that year. What makes his example so unique is that he was, in fact, a staple in the Top 10 in his prime from 1992-1997, but in 2001, he was at the end of his career. He hadn't been ranked in the top 50 for nearly 2 years, and he never won another title (or even more than 6 matches in an entire season) after that.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Even though the slam winners weren't quite so unlikely as Ivanisevic/Costa/Johansson (or Gaudio - but Gaudio was in Federer's first three-slam year, so everyone knows things were changing by then), I would say that mid-1997 to mid-1999 was the apex of disorder/equality on the men's tour, even more than 2001-02, @manley0702.
manley0702
Semi-Pro
Yeah. No doubt. That's why the OP confuses me. Whatever that's happening now is not new, and it's not extreme at all.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Actually, 2026 (admittedly, the OP was written in 2025) has had some of the most orderly sets of results in the 40 years I've followed tennis. For examples:
- there was that week in February in which all three ATP events had a #1 v #2 final, which was the first time in decades. Moreover, two of the #1s won the finals [Cerundolo beat Darderi in Buenos Aires, De Minaur beat Auger-Aliassime in Rotterdam], and the third only lost from match point up [Shelton beat Fritz in Dallas].
- all of the top six seeds made the quarter-finals of the Australian Open in both men's and women's singles, which is the first time that's happened in a slam in the open era.
- all of the last 16 in men's singles at the Australian Open were seeded, which is the first time that's happened in the open era.
- the top four seeds all reached the semi-finals of the men's singles at the Australian Open, which is the first slam that's happened at since 2019 and the first time at the Australian Open since 2013.
- this is a lesser matter, admittedly, (the 96-player draws usually hold up more, as they effectively seed half the players, given that the seeds only enter the draw in the round of 64), but in both men's and women's singles at Indian Wells, there are only three non-seeds in the last 16, and in the women's singles, 12 of the 16 top seeds have taken their seeded spot in the last 16.
Last edited:
MrFlip
Hall of Fame
I am old enough to remember those.
I am talking about almost a total homogenization of the rankings and players now since anyone inside the top 50 can take out almost anyone now in whatever round.
I think it's the worst it's ever been where Tiafoe, Rune, Tsitsipas, Ruud to name a few, would consistenly lose and or struggle against much much lower ranked players.
Don't even get me started on the WTA.....pure anarchy.
manley0702
Semi-Pro
Again though, this is nothing new. It's always been the case that anyone inside the top 50 can take out almost anyone now in whatever round. It's actually happening less now than it happened 25-30 years ago.
a10best
Legend
Shelton just fell to 84th-ranked Shevchenko.
MrFlip
Hall of Fame
Music to my ears!
DutchUncle
Professional
He hasn't been feeling well, a virus.
Storm Hunter was mentioned a couple of times as beating much higher-ranked opponents. Storm is mainly a fairly successful doubles player, and infrequently plays singles. That's why her singles ranking is low - not because she's a lousy player.
a10best
Legend
Ben was serving in mid to high 130s in Miami humidity, held serve for 2 sets and ran fine around the court.
If you're well enough to play and win while claiming you have a virus, then you're well enough to lose.
His game is over-rated just as Fritz, Foe and Paul's are. I don't hate em'. It's just that they're forever 1-2 tiers below Sinner/Alcaraz.
Of course they'll lose once in a while to them in a M1000, but not in a slam.
I see Fils, Fonseca, and Americans Tien and Quinn surpassing the current American 4.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Your favorite player Tiafoe is in the Miami QFs, though he's up against Sinner and thus will probably not make the SFs.
MrFlip
Hall of Fame
This not what I need to thrive on here.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Well, this may be better then: he got clobbered by Sinner today, 6-2 6-2.
Similar threads
